Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: thebigshed on January 02, 2012, 02:41:30 PM
-
I get concerned now with cars parking on the road and pavement when approaching from Stockport.
The vehicle egress is often obstructed and an additional danger is occasioned particularly with the position of the pedestrian crossing.
I think most of the houses near these shops have a driveway so I would suggest double yellow lines to try and stop obstruction and as Phil says, you can always carry on to the petrol station shop even though there is a mandatory no left turn at the Church Lane exit and a courtesy no exit sign onto Stockport Rd!
Are the road signs mandatory if on private land? I never use the Church Lane exit as it means going all the way up Church lane to get back home. I always use the other "exit".
-
there is a mandatory no left turn at the Church Lane exit and a courtesy no exit sign onto Stockport Rd!
Are the road signs mandatory if on private land? I never use the Church Lane exit as it means going all the way up Church lane to get back home. I always use the other "exit".
Good question. I must confess I do the same, and for the same reason. I suspect that the no exit sign may have been a condition of planning consent. But that alone doesn't make it mandatory, does it?
-
I doubt they are mandatory as they are not the regulation size. By far better to exit onto Stockport Road than the idiots I've seen exiting onto Church Lane and then turning left.
-
I doubt they are mandatory as they are not the regulation size. By far better to exit onto Stockport Road than the idiots I've seen exiting onto Church Lane and then turning left.
I alluded to the "courtesy" no exit sign onto Stockport Rd. I readily accept that this instructional sign is on private property and whilst it might not be enforceable, I think the prosecution would have a strong case if an accident happened there as a result of a vehicle emerging onto Stockport Rd.
As you come out of the Petrol station onto Church lane the blue sign in the refuge indicates for vehicle to turn right thus joining the flow of the one way St. Turning left creates confusion to approaching vehicles and should not be done. Having said that, I have seen the Summerfields HGV delivery vehicle doing just that- a fine example.
So in order to use the petrol station coming from Stockport, Stop in the refuge in centre of road, wait for oncoming vehicles to clear-also keeping your third eye open watch out for the speeders coming round the bend out of Station Rd and then turn in. When you have filled up, go and pay (don't forget to lock your car) and then turn right into Church lane, then finalise your route at Littlewoods roundabout- SIMPLE- geek!!!!!!!
-
I have seen the Summerfields HGV delivery vehicle doing just that- a fine example.
Actually I watched this the other day because I was curious about why the HGV did this. There's no way for them to turn around to unload from the rear of the wagon if they come in from the Stockport Road side.
However, apart from the delivery truck, it's a dangerous location and people from the south side of Stockport Road have to cross at the lights, especially schoolchildren who are put at risk by these inconsiderate drivers. There is no excuse for vehicles using the wrong entrance other than laziness and trying to save a minute of time. I'd like to see those "dragon's teeth" traffic management assemblies put in so there is only one way to enter and exit the site along with some other system to force drivers exiting to use Church Lane.
-
I doubt they are mandatory as they are not the regulation size. By far better to exit onto Stockport Road than the idiots I've seen exiting onto Church Lane and then turning left.
If I see someone coming out through the in door, I pretend I haven't seen them and enter the petrol station in the middle on the road just to make a point.
-
I have seen the Summerfields HGV delivery vehicle doing just that- a fine example.
Actually I watched this the other day because I was curious about why the HGV did this. There's no way for them to turn around to unload from the rear of the wagon if they come in from the Stockport Road side.
Howard, I think you've missed the point. Vehicles are EXITING onto Church Lane and turning LEFT, against the one-way system.
-
Howard, I think you've missed the point. Vehicles are EXITING onto Church Lane and turning LEFT, against the one-way system.
Harry, I think you misunderstood or misread my post. Every day I see drivers use the wrong exits deliberately to save themselves a trip around the block. The only vehicles that have an excuse for this is the delivery HGV that is not able to get into the site to unload from the back. My point was that I'd like to see some sort of traffic management system that forces drivers to use the right exit and go up Church Lane when exiting the site.
-
Do the residents on the lower part of Church Lane really want ALL traffic coming out of the Somerfield/Co-op store travelling up Church Lane? Stockport Road can realistically handle that traffic - I'm not sure that Church Lane can.
If I wanted to fill up with petrol and then set off to toward Stockport I would be pretty cheesed off at being diverted in the opposite direction half way round the centre of Marple first.
-
Do the residents on the lower part of Church Lane really want ALL traffic coming out of the Somerfield/Co-op store travelling up Church Lane? Stockport Road can realistically handle that traffic - I'm not sure that Church Lane can.
Of course it can cope with it. It's supposed to. Perhaps if we get another large building along Hollins lane there might be an issue ;) but at the moment there's no problem.
If I wanted to fill up with petrol and then set off to toward Stockport I would be pretty cheesed off at being diverted in the opposite direction half way round the centre of Marple first.
In that case you'd be just as selfish as those who do it now. It saves a minute - two at most. If you did this then you'd be putting pedestrians at risk who have to cross the exits and entries and expect traffic to be coming from only one direction. You'd also be putting yourself and other drivers at risk when they come down Station Road throught the GREEN light turning west towards Stockport who are definitely not expecting traffic to be joining them from the ONE WAY street on their left.
I have seen several accidents there caused by drivers doing precisely this.
-
Howard - have you personally driven your car into the Somerfield Car Park recently? Church Lane has speed bumps on ... for a reason. How can you possibly say that it was built for lots of traffic? It is also parked up the entire way along, making viewing difficult for pedestrians wanting to cross. Stockport Road might be busy, but the visibility is at least good in most places.
I rarely use the Somerfield store for petrol (it's expensive). When I do so I adhere to the signs and sigh! It is utterly barmy not to be able to turn left out of the garage at the end well away from the one-way system and proceed straight off down the Stockport Road. This was the normal exit in the days when it was purely a Texaco garage and Somerfield didn't exist. For your information it can take considerably longer than 2 minutes to go "round the block" on a Saturday morning, and the roundabout junction of Church Lane with Hibbert Lane is hideous - try it on a bicycle if you don't believe me.
I'm not condoning going the wrong one up a one-way street. I'm suggesting (like a few others on this thread) that it would be far more logical to go out of the other end of the petrol station if you are then heading toward Stockport.
-
Hollins, I live very close to the location and use that area every single day as do my wife and children who walk that way to school.
Nowhere in my post did I say that Church Lane was built for that kind of traffic. None of the roads in Marple were built for the traffic they have now. In fact, when Marple had far fewer cars, Church Lane was two way traffic. The speed bumps on Church Lane are nothing to do with the current supermarket. Anyone who lived near the road before the speed bumps will recall cars speeding up Church Lane with little regard for anyone's safety and when they were added it reduced the speed, and therefore the risk, considerably. Now, of course, they speed up the higher part of Church Lane instead.
As the size of the convenience store increased and became a small supermarket then clearly traffic needed to be managed better. It's obvious that the amount of traffic going through the site has increased significantly since the new store was built which is why an attempt was made to route it by adding the no entry/exit signs. Drivers who ignore them, whether they're just "suggestions" or not are behaving inconsiderately and putting other people at risk. Just because drivers disagree with a sign that causes them minor inconvenience is no excuse for ignoring it.
-
I'm sure the original reasoning behind the traffic management on Church lane was correct and the issues behind it that Howard lists, remains correct. I don't have a particular problem with people coming out of the entrance on to Stockport road as its not unsafe to do so and there is plenty of room.. even when I do what Duke Fame does ;)
I don't think it used to be much of a problem, however I'm noticing a huge increase in people coming out of the exit and turning left onto Stockport road. To be honest there is plenty of room at the end there but its off putting for other road users, clearly against the law even if the exit and entrance things arn't enforceable, and an accident waiting to happen.
But at the same time church lane is now often clogged up, not suitable for some of the traffic going up there, the bumps are looking worn already and I'm sure they redid them last year.
So really it s just time for a bit of a rethink by the garage and the road planners and I'm not sure why were all arguing! Thats what i reckon anyway :D
-
Wouldn't the simplest solution be to change round the signs so the entry was by the shop and the exit further down Stockport Road? That way drivers would be more likely to follow the signs.
I never turn left out of the current "exit" on Church Lane. If anyone is coming in as I am leaving the Stockport Road "entry" I give way.
-
By the way. Where people park on lower Church Lane seems to have been a problem for a long time. Here's a picture from the archives (undated) that clearly shows double lines down one side of the street.
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/misc/CHURCHLANE.JPG)
And another, but I think it's another version of the same image:
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/streetscenes/picture_11.jpg)
-
It is utterly barmy not to be able to turn left out of the garage at the end well away from the one-way system and proceed straight off down the Stockport Road. ..... I'm suggesting (like a few others on this thread) that it would be far more logical to go out of the other end of the petrol station if you are then heading toward Stockport.
I entirely agree. The current arrangement, which I suspect was imposed by SMBC planners, is ridiculous. It is perfectly safe to exit directly on to Stockport Road and head west towards Rose Hill. Making drivers go up Church Lane and through the centre of Marple just clogs up the traffic even more. ::)
-
By the way. Where people park on lower Church Lane seems to have been a problem for a long time. Here's a picture from the archives (undated) that clearly shows double lines down one side of the street.
They are versions of the same image and probably early 1900s. I'm not at all convinced that they are double yellow lines Howard (which were introduced in the UK in 1960 according to Wikipedia) although I can see why you thought that. I believe they are simply a different arrangement of the cobbles to form a gutter. You can see what I'm suggesting more clearly in this images further up Church Lane:
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/mlhs07/mlhs_conservative_club.jpg)
-
Double yellow cobbles?
-
I get concerned now with cars parking on the road and pavement when approaching from Stockport.
The vehicle egress is often obstructed and an additional danger is occasioned particularly with the position of the pedestrian crossing.
I think most of the houses near these shops have a driveway so I would suggest double yellow lines to try and stop obstruction and as Phil says, you can always carry on to the petrol station shop even though there is a mandatory no left turn at the Church Lane exit and a courtesy no exit sign onto Stockport Rd!
Are the road signs mandatory if on private land? I never use the Church Lane exit as it means going all the way up Church lane to get back home. I always use the other "exit".
So it was you who nearly ran into me when I was turning in at the lower (correct) entrance the other day. It would help if those wrongly exiting at that point would at least keep to the left
-
I get concerned now with cars parking on the road and pavement when approaching from Stockport.
The vehicle egress is often obstructed and an additional danger is occasioned particularly with the position of the pedestrian crossing.
I think most of the houses near these shops have a driveway so I would suggest double yellow lines to try and stop obstruction and as Phil says, you can always carry on to the petrol station shop even though there is a mandatory no left turn at the Church Lane exit and a courtesy no exit sign onto Stockport Rd!
Are the road signs mandatory if on private land? I never use the Church Lane exit as it means going all the way up Church lane to get back home. I always use the other "exit".
So it was you who nearly ran into me when I was turning in at the lower (correct) entrance the other day. It would help if those wrongly exiting at that point would at least keep to the left
I think this is the point, it's clearly not 'perfectly safe' if someone entering the garage isn't expecting someone to come out the wrong way. I don't think anyone has thought it through, if the one way was reversed, access to the parking will be difficult and dangerous for those walking out of the shop. Will those wanting petrol be willing to wait for the lights to change before taking the right church lane signal.
I think well see more of the 'Daves' of this world thinking the rules don't apply to them and get impatient.
-
it's clearly not 'perfectly safe' if someone entering the garage isn't expecting someone to come out the wrong way.
Agreed. But my point is that the 'no exit' sign should not be there at all, in which case everyone would know that it's a two-way entrance/exit.
-
I think well see more of the 'Daves' of this world thinking the rules don't apply to them
Is this the same Duke Fame who in a thread about illegal fly-posting wrote 'It's good to see local businesses promoting themselves'? ::)
-
I think well see more of the 'Daves' of this world thinking the rules don't apply to them
Is this the same Duke Fame who in a thread about illegal fly-posting wrote 'It's good to see local businesses promoting themselves'? ::)
and i'm absolutely right.
The guidelines for garage forecourts and outlined by the DofE. Basically, should be one way, exits should join the flow of traffic, kiosk-end should be the exit tp avoid congestion at the entrance.
Basically, I'm right again, hurray for me.
-
The guidelines for garage forecourts and outlined by the DofE. Basically, should be one way, exits should join the flow of traffic, kiosk-end should be the exit tp avoid congestion at the entrance.
Basically, I'm right again, hurray for me.
Whats the Duke of Edinburgh got to do with it?
-
So it was you who nearly ran into me when I was turning in at the lower (correct) entrance the other day. It would help if those wrongly exiting at that point would at least keep to the left
No it wasn't. I hardly ever use the Texaco anyway and I am always very careful when exiting.
-
I think well see more of the 'Daves' of this world thinking the rules don't apply to them
Is this the same Duke Fame who in a thread about illegal fly-posting wrote 'It's good to see local businesses promoting themselves'? ::)
Yes Dave, the same Duke Fame who will ignore red lights when cycling....
-
I think well see more of the 'Daves' of this world thinking the rules don't apply to them
Is this the same Duke Fame who in a thread about illegal fly-posting wrote 'It's good to see local businesses promoting themselves'? ::)
Yes Dave, the same Duke Fame who will ignore red lights when cycling....
I'm unlikely to do any damage to anyone but myself on a push bike, you lefties would do well to remind yourselves that you are in charge of a 1 ton killing machine when you can't be bothered to observe some fairly basic road signs. Hypocrites the lot of ya, no better than Diane Abbot pfft.
-
My my, don't you like being reminded of how you have publicly stated there are rules you are more than prepared to break when you are attempting to castigate others for the same thing? As has been perviously stated, the signs in the garage forecourt are advisory, not like red lights.
-
My my, don't you like being reminded of how you have publicly stated there are rules you are more than prepared to break when you are attempting to castigate others for the same thing? As has been perviously stated, the signs in the garage forecourt are advisory, not like red lights.
It's still is very dangerous. Just last week, I came down church lane on my bike and being a but busy jumped the kerb and was getting a bit of speed going (I like to get back on the road at the bus stop) ready to slot into the traffic so I need to get up to around 25-30. I check who's turning into the garage as i go and all is clear yet some ignorant person pulls right into my path out of the garage and I miss him by centimetres. You lot are in a world of your own driving in your tin boxes whilst slowly getting more & more obese through lack of exercise. "I'm big boned" I hear you say and before blaming the tory govt for not prescribing pies on the NHS. pfft!
-
Just last week, I came down church lane on my bike and being a but busy jumped the kerb and was getting a bit of speed going (I like to get back on the road at the bus stop) ready to slot into the traffic so I need to get up to around 25-30. I check who's turning into the garage as i go and all is clear yet some ignorant person pulls right into my path out of the garage and I miss him by centimetres. You lot are in a world of your own driving in your tin boxes whilst slowly getting more & more obese through lack of exercise. "I'm big boned" I hear you say and before blaming the tory govt for not prescribing pies on the NHS. pfft!
Duke, if you were going down Church Lane on your bike you were going the wrong way along a one way street or you were riding on the pavement, both of which are illegal. Also you seem to have been travelling at a fair speed, 25-30 mph?
If this is really the case then you can hardly blame the driver for not expecting something to be coming from that direction. If you'd been hurt then I suggest that you only have yourself to blame and that, in fact, it was you who was in the wrong.
Or am I just feeding the troll? ;)
-
I think well see more of the 'Daves' of this world thinking the rules don't apply to them
Is this the same Duke Fame who in a thread about illegal fly-posting wrote 'It's good to see local businesses promoting themselves'? ::)
How can you make the comparison of fly posting with dangerous driving?! Drivers ignoring the no-exit sign are disreagarding the safety of others who abide by it.
-
Yes Dave, the same Duke Fame who will ignore red lights when cycling....
I'm unlikely to do any damage to anyone but myself on a push bike, you lefties would do well to remind yourselves that you are in charge of a 1 ton killing machine when you can't be bothered to observe some fairly basic road signs. Hypocrites the lot of ya, no better than Diane Abbot pfft.
Us "lefties" (why?) with our "one ton killing machines" may cause damage to others as a result of trying to avoid cyclists who think they can wobble about in a dangerous manner and then blame the motorist.
-
How can you make the comparison of fly posting with dangerous driving?! Drivers ignoring the no-exit sign are disreagarding the safety of others who abide by it.
I take your point, cripes. However, this thread started with this query:
Are the road signs mandatory if on private land?
There has not been a definitive answer to that question, so we don't know whether those exiting the forecourt on to Stockport Road are breaking the law or not. But fly-posters definitely are - as indeed are cyclists who ignore red traffic lights!
-
Yes Dave, the same Duke Fame who will ignore red lights when cycling....
I'm unlikely to do any damage to anyone but myself on a push bike, you lefties would do well to remind yourselves that you are in charge of a 1 ton killing machine when you can't be bothered to observe some fairly basic road signs. Hypocrites the lot of ya, no better than Diane Abbot pfft.
Us "lefties" (why?) with our "one ton killing machines" may cause damage to others as a result of trying to avoid cyclists who think they can wobble about in a dangerous manner and then blame the motorist.
Damn those cyslits with their wanton wabbling
-
How can you make the comparison of fly posting with dangerous driving?! Drivers ignoring the no-exit sign are disreagarding the safety of others who abide by it.
I take your point, cripes. However, this thread started with this query:
Are the road signs mandatory if on private land?
There has not been a definitive answer to that question, so we don't know whether those exiting the forecourt on to Stockport Road are breaking the law or not. But fly-posters definitely are - as indeed are cyclists who ignore red traffic lights!
Why would anyone ignore the signs? I’d obvious why they are there, the dept of environment make guidelines for garages in order to maintain safety. The fact that you will not receive points on your licence should be irrelevant, if you have an accident, the fault will most certainly be with the chap who ignores the signs. It’s just ignorance.
WRT ‘fly posting’ these must be the politest fly posters ever who take their posters down every Sunday afternoon. It’s no more of a problem than the Marple 10k race organisers with their meddlesome ‘CAUTION runners in the road’
-
Why would anyone ignore the signs?
Because they are so obviously ridiculous, and are ignored by anyone with a grain of commonsense, including the Co-op delivery drivers, tanker drivers etc etc. It's not the law, it's just something dreamed up by a few bossy people in a room at SMBC Planning Dept.
I'm surprised at you, Duke. I thought you Daily Mail readers didn't approve of the Nanny State. ;)
-
Why would anyone ignore the signs?
Because they are so obviously ridiculous, and are ignored by anyone with a grain of commonsense, including the Co-op delivery drivers, tanker drivers etc etc. It's not the law, it's just something dreamed up by a few bossy people in a room at SMBC Planning Dept.
I'm surprised at you, Duke. I thought you Daily Mail readers didn't approve of the Nanny State. ;)
It's not the SMBC who issue the guidelines. The guidelines are clear, there should be a one way system that avoids congestion at the entrance to avoid traffic backing up into the main carriageway and the entrance-end should provide space for cars waiting for the pumps.
It's all logical to someone like me and I therefore observe etiquette. Some people are obviously not quite as bright as me which is understandable.
I don't like an all powerful nanny state and think people with a little common sense can understand where dangers exist and be sensible. Obviously, this example proves there are a lot of ignorant self-centred people who will forsake other people's safety for their own convenience and perhaps my faith in human nature is too great.
-
Duke Fame wrote:
WRT ‘fly posting’ these must be the politest fly posters ever who take their posters down every Sunday afternoon. It’s no more of a problem than the Marple 10k race organisers with their meddlesome ‘CAUTION runners in the road’
Question: The Marple 10k as all off road, so why would the organisers use 'CAUTION runners in the road' signs? Where do they locate these signs?
-
Logic suggests that to prevent backing up and congestion on the carriageway it would be preferable (but certainly not obligatory) to visit a petrol station on the same side of the road as you are travelling. Given the side of the road that Somerfield/Texaco is placed then this means that, if you were to enforce a one-way system, cars travelling from Marple Town Centre toward Stockport, with entry on the Marple Town Centre end and exit on the Stockport end. (Yes, this has been suggested earlier in this thread!)
That said, I don't see any of the other local petrol stations enforcing a one-way system and none of them seem to have any difficulty. A little bit of flexibility seems to reduce congestion. Moreover, there certainly is plenty of room on the forecourt to go round the pumps and exit from the end you came in.
I suggest that you don't disobey the signage for now, but ask for it to be changed so that entry and exit is permitted at the easier end, preferably with some white lines to divide traffic streams.
To be honest, it's not a great place to site a petrol station: right on a very complicated junction.
-
WRT ‘fly posting’ these must be the politest fly posters ever who take their posters down every Sunday afternoon. It’s no more of a problem than the Marple 10k race organisers with their meddlesome ‘CAUTION runners in the road’
Having run this a few times myself, I wonder if you are getting mixed up. The race is along the Middlewood Way and back along the canal. At no time does it go on a road.
And bearing in mind that when retired, many fire officers take up positions as H&S officers, I'm sure they would ensure they are complying with the law.
-
WRT ‘fly posting’ these must be the politest fly posters ever who take their posters down every Sunday afternoon. It’s no more of a problem than the Marple 10k race organisers with their meddlesome ‘CAUTION runners in the road’
Having run this a few times myself, I wonder if you are getting mixed up. The race is along the Middlewood Way and back along the canal. At no time does it go on a road.
And bearing in mind that when retired, many fire officers take up positions as H&S officers, I'm sure they would ensure they are complying with the law.
It's not really the point, be it a road race or cycle race, they put up signs like these: (http://wcr.squarespace.com/storage/tims-pics-from-wcr09/caution%20runners%202%20x.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1272828576104) or (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2690/4447733963_1ff393209c.jpg)
-
It's not the SMBC who issue the guidelines.
Who is it then?
I don't see any of the other local petrol stations enforcing a one-way system and none of them seem to have any difficulty.
Neither did this one until recently. It was probably imposed by over-zealous planning officers when the Co-op supermarket was added. Eventually they will presumably either enforce it, or get rid of the no-exit sign and revert to how things used to be. I can't see them enforcing it; even if they have the legal powers, can anyone see the Co-op delivery trucks and the tankers threading their way up Church Lane? :o
-
Why would anyone ignore the signs?
Because they are so obviously ridiculous, and are ignored by anyone with a grain of commonsense, including the Co-op delivery drivers, tanker drivers etc etc. It's not the law, it's just something dreamed up by a few bossy people in a room at SMBC Planning Dept.
I'm surprised at you, Duke. I thought you Daily Mail readers didn't approve of the Nanny State. ;)
It's not the SMBC who issue the guidelines. The guidelines are clear, there should be a one way system that avoids congestion at the entrance to avoid traffic backing up into the main carriageway and the entrance-end should provide space for cars waiting for the pumps.
It's all logical to someone like me and I therefore observe etiquette. Some people are obviously not quite as bright as me which is understandable.
I don't like an all powerful nanny state and think people with a little common sense can understand where dangers exist and be sensible. Obviously, this example proves there are a lot of ignorant self-centred people who will forsake other people's safety for their own convenience and perhaps my faith in human nature is too great.
You're absolutely right Duke, the example of running a red light, surely the most basic and non-negotiable of all road 'signage' just goes to show there are 'ignorant and self-centered people' using the roads. How do we expect other road users to take notice of, say, purely advisory signs on a garage forecourt when people are running red lights. Doesn't it just go to show that there are people who will lecture others but don't think the rules apply to them.
-
Why would anyone ignore the signs?
Because they are so obviously ridiculous, and are ignored by anyone with a grain of commonsense, including the Co-op delivery drivers, tanker drivers etc etc. It's not the law, it's just something dreamed up by a few bossy people in a room at SMBC Planning Dept.
I'm surprised at you, Duke. I thought you Daily Mail readers didn't approve of the Nanny State. ;)
It's not the SMBC who issue the guidelines. The guidelines are clear, there should be a one way system that avoids congestion at the entrance to avoid traffic backing up into the main carriageway and the entrance-end should provide space for cars waiting for the pumps.
It's all logical to someone like me and I therefore observe etiquette. Some people are obviously not quite as bright as me which is understandable.
I don't like an all powerful nanny state and think people with a little common sense can understand where dangers exist and be sensible. Obviously, this example proves there are a lot of ignorant self-centred people who will forsake other people's safety for their own convenience and perhaps my faith in human nature is too great.
You're absolutely right Duke, the example of running a red light, surely the most basic and non-negotiable of all road 'signage' just goes to show there are 'ignorant and self-centered people' using the roads. How do we expect other road users to take notice of, say, purely advisory signs on a garage forecourt when people are running red lights. Doesn't it just go to show that there are people who will lecture others but don't think the rules apply to them.
Of a morning there is little choice at the foot of Dan Bank, in the wet I'm simply not going to stop and stay in control. Of the others, if it's clear to cross, do you begrudge a pedestrian crossing whilst traffic is stationary? I ask as it's exactly the same as a cyclist.
-
if it's clear to cross, do you begrudge a pedestrian crossing whilst traffic is stationary? I ask as it's exactly the same as a cyclist.
No it isn't. A pedestrian can perfectly legally cross the road while traffic is stationary. Indeed, s/he can also ignore a red light at a pedestrian crossing without committing any offence. On the other hand, a cyclist running a red light commits an offence carrying a £30 fixed penalty.
I'm getting a bit worried about Duke. Defending illegal flyposters, trading in black-market videos, ignoring red traffic lights - where will it end? :o
-
Maybe part of this topic should be split from 'Entering and Exiting'.
As a cyclist who has commuted for almost 15 years in wet, snow, ice, dark, and light conditions and also regularly reach over 30 mph going down Dan Bank I have never failed to stop at the red lights at the bottom (and then also had to stop at the red lights at Seventeen Windows before going left). I also stop at pedestrian crossings when required, go the correct way on 'one way' streets and avoid riding on footpaths unless it is a joint cycle path.
If you don't feel you can stop safely if the road is wet then it is obvious you are going too fast and not in control of your vehicle (be it two or four wheels).
Traffic lights, and road signage, are there for a reason and if we all ignored them just think of the accidents that could occur.
-
Maybe part of this topic should be split from 'Entering and Exiting'.
As a cyclist who has commuted for almost 15 years in wet, snow, ice, dark, and light conditions and also regularly reach over 30 mph going down Dan Bank I have never failed to stop at the red lights at the bottom (and then also had to stop at the red lights at Seventeen Windows before going left). I also stop at pedestrian crossings when required, go the correct way on 'one way' streets and avoid riding on footpaths unless it is a joint cycle path.
If you don't feel you can stop safely if the road is wet then it is obvious you are going too fast and not in control of your vehicle (be it two or four wheels).
Traffic lights, and road signage, are there for a reason and if we all ignored them just think of the accidents that could occur.
I can't see the point of the bike unless you can jump the lights. I don't go flying across, I just overtake the queue then look for a decent gap and go for it as if I were a pedestrian.
Car drivers are weird with bikes, I had one rotund lady in a Citroen Picasso (lightblue / silver) go to such an effort to block my path before Christmas, I had to go around her and the tried to crush me with her car against the bus in front.
-
The point of commuting on a bike is to be able to 'safely' pass slow moving and stationary traffic to get to your destination quicker than a driver. However, as a road user, a cyclist should follow the highway code.
'Some' car drivers are weird with bikes. I know, as I have had my fair share of bad experiences with both male and female drivers.
Most drivers are great, and if I have my flashing white light on - on my handlebars (steady light on the frame) and have been 'spotted' in a mirror these 'great' drivers will move over to let me pass and I'm sure they all appreciate my acknowledgement of thanks.
Just one more point for 'some' car drivers. Please give cyclists a little more room when overtaking them. That 2.5cm deep pothole or little bit of debris in the road is nothing to a car but to a cyclist it can be a major hazard that we have to try and avoid.
-
I don't quite understand why everyone is getting so upset over an issue that will become irrelevant soon anyway.
Once the new ASDA is built, a super-cheap petrol station will come with it that will be open 24 hours a day, with NO access/exit issues. There will most likely be a small shop service with it (separate to the main store) that will also be 24 hours a day and will remove from the existing business the sales volume required to run a unit like the Texaco/Somerfield store. Texcao will most likely close down following the loss of sales volume and no-one will need to worry about a few cars turning the wrong way out of the petrol station as it will become a wasteland cordoned off by metal linked fences. Cyclist will be able to break in and perform 'wheelies' and tricks on the large area of concrete wasteland, interspersed with weeds breaking through!
Presumably this will make all the people concerned over this issue happy!
-
I don't quite understand why everyone is getting so upset over an issue that will become irrelevant soon anyway.
Once the new ASDA is built, a super-cheap petrol station will come with it that will be open 24 hours a day, with NO access/exit issues. There will most likely be a small shop service with it (separate to the main store) that will also be 24 hours a day and will remove from the existing business the sales volume required to run a unit like the Texaco/Somerfield store. Texcao will most likely close down following the loss of sales volume and no-one will need to worry about a few cars turning the wrong way out of the petrol station as it will become a wasteland cordoned off by metal linked fences. Cyclist will be able to break in and perform 'wheelies' and tricks on the large area of concrete wasteland, interspersed with weeds breaking through!
Presumably this will make all the people concerned over this issue happy!
Really, perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to it.
-
I don't quite understand why everyone is getting so upset over an issue that will become irrelevant soon anyway.
Once the new ASDA is built, a super-cheap petrol station will come with it that will be open 24 hours a day, with NO access/exit issues. There will most likely be a small shop service with it (separate to the main store) that will also be 24 hours a day and will remove from the existing business the sales volume required to run a unit like the Texaco/Somerfield store. Texcao will most likely close down following the loss of sales volume and no-one will need to worry about a few cars turning the wrong way out of the petrol station as it will become a wasteland cordoned off by metal linked fences. Cyclist will be able to break in and perform 'wheelies' and tricks on the large area of concrete wasteland, interspersed with weeds breaking through!
Presumably this will make all the people concerned over this issue happy!
Really, perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to it.
You may have a plan there :-)